The Plaintiff/Applicant’s Application dated 9th may 2025 is before the court for directions on this day 15th May 2025. The directions having been given, Counsel for the Applicant has sought for interim orders in terms of prayer (b) thereof that pending hearing and determination of the application inter-parties, there be a stay of execution of the decree and all orders arising from the Ruling of this honourable court delivered on 4th July 2023.
Counsel for the Defendant is opposed to the issuance of any interim orders before the court is seized of their Response for reasons that such orders if issued will prejudice the matter. He further states that the parties in this case are husband and wife and that a similar matter in a family case was placed before this court No. 3 and that because that Family Court Case was related to this matter that was before court No. 1 the said Court No. 1 has now this matter to this court because it is about the same suit premises. Counsel is therefore of the opinion that given these circumstances, this case now before the Court ought to proceed on its own merits.
In light of these representations, the court proceeded to give the following Ruling;
Having considered the fact that this application seeks for the review of orders in a Ruling that was delivered in July of 2023, I am of the opinion that without being properly seized of the circumstances pertaining to this case and also considering the assertions also now being made by counsel for Respondent in passing, caution militates against the granting of the Applicant’s prayer for interim orders. The same is therefore denied.
Read Dated and Signed at ELDORET on 15th May 2025.
Counsel for the Defendant is opposed to the issuance of any interim orders before the court is seized of their Response for reasons that such orders if issued will prejudice the matter. He further states that the parties in this case are husband and wife and that a similar matter in a family case was placed before this court No. 3 and that because that Family Court Case was related to this matter that was before court No. 1 the said Court No. 1 has now this matter to this court because it is about the same suit premises. Counsel is therefore of the opinion that given these circumstances, this case now before the Court ought to proceed on its own merits.
In light of these representations, the court proceeded to give the following Ruling;
Having considered the fact that this application seeks for the review of orders in a Ruling that was delivered in July of 2023, I am of the opinion that without being properly seized of the circumstances pertaining to this case and also considering the assertions also now being made by counsel for Respondent in passing, caution militates against the granting of the Applicant’s prayer for interim orders. The same is therefore denied.
Read Dated and Signed at ELDORET on 15th May 2025.